About net neutrality and law
That the FCC would get into the fray is ridiculous. Perhaps the NAME has gotten to people's heads F COMMUNICATION C. The earlier agency was the Federal Radio Commission. In fact, MOST of what the FCC deals with has ******NOTHING****** to do with human communication, and much has NOTHING to deal with communication either.
The FCC mandates frequency ranges for RADAR! THEY set ranges for things like remote control whatever!(EVEN TOY AIRPLANES!) They EVEN limit the design of computers so they don't interfere with radio waves they allocate. Most of their business is isolating and allocating frequencies and enforcing legislation to do so. Create a radio control that hurts a given TV station, use it a lot, so it affects others, and don't be surprised if you have to deal with the FCC.
And YEAH, with OPEN PUBLIC radio and TV, they had decency laws. You WILL note that they didn't with CLOSED radio(like CB, walkie talkies, or PAY TV).
Did they EVER manage phones, books, pictures, etc? NOPE! The company controlling phone hardware, etc....(outside of sattelite and cell phone SIGNALS that must be limited and controlled to prevent interference) is the PUC.(Public Utilities Commission). They have state offices, HERE is the mission statement of the PUC for the california office: "The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy. We regulate utility services, stimulate innovation, and promote competitive markets, where possible."
I love how they keep changing their "mission statement", and want you to believe that they control the internet! It has gotten to where a half dozen agencies might go after a person for the SAME THING! That was NOT the original intent!
Does the internet need to have regulations like that that the FCC originally had? CERTAINLY! But THAT is what IANA is for in the US. They have sister agencies in other countries that do the SAME thing! IANA limits itself to one range, Germany another, France another, nigeria to another, china to another, etc.... THEIR mission statement didn't cover content EITHER, but they have ALSO taken it upon themselves apparently to do so, which is the reasoning GODADDY gives to cause trouble in that area.
As for the net neutrality deal? WATCH OUT!!!!! I have, in the past, seen different interpretations, etc... As for the idea of throughput being tied to price, that has ALWAYS been the case! ALWAYS! When I started with similar things, in the 70s, I did work at a company that paid many THOUSANDS for a leased line. WHY? They needed faster service than the normal lines could provide. LATER, in the 80s, I researched some faster ways to communicate. ALL were too expensive. GRANTED, they were different hardware, etc.... But you know, they DID all terminate to a network connection. GRANTED, they kept getting cheaper, but there came a point where that obviously had to stop. TODAY, they have FRACTIONAL lines, and THROTTLING WHY? Do they get more money? MAYBE! But one thing is for sure. If EVERYONE had a TB/s throughput, the US would have spotty service and few would have access. It seems kind of petty to INSIST that a company give you MUCH faster service for a lower cost. BTW a TB/s is enough to power the connections to 100 100Mb/s servers.
And what of those servers? If ONE person connects, the maximum speed is 100Mb/s! If TEN connect and try to download as fast as possible, he maximum speed is 10Mb/s. Sorry, simple law of physics! So you don't even know if throttling is intentional or incidental.
Steve
The FCC mandates frequency ranges for RADAR! THEY set ranges for things like remote control whatever!(EVEN TOY AIRPLANES!) They EVEN limit the design of computers so they don't interfere with radio waves they allocate. Most of their business is isolating and allocating frequencies and enforcing legislation to do so. Create a radio control that hurts a given TV station, use it a lot, so it affects others, and don't be surprised if you have to deal with the FCC.
And YEAH, with OPEN PUBLIC radio and TV, they had decency laws. You WILL note that they didn't with CLOSED radio(like CB, walkie talkies, or PAY TV).
Did they EVER manage phones, books, pictures, etc? NOPE! The company controlling phone hardware, etc....(outside of sattelite and cell phone SIGNALS that must be limited and controlled to prevent interference) is the PUC.(Public Utilities Commission). They have state offices, HERE is the mission statement of the PUC for the california office: "The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy. We regulate utility services, stimulate innovation, and promote competitive markets, where possible."
I love how they keep changing their "mission statement", and want you to believe that they control the internet! It has gotten to where a half dozen agencies might go after a person for the SAME THING! That was NOT the original intent!
Does the internet need to have regulations like that that the FCC originally had? CERTAINLY! But THAT is what IANA is for in the US. They have sister agencies in other countries that do the SAME thing! IANA limits itself to one range, Germany another, France another, nigeria to another, china to another, etc.... THEIR mission statement didn't cover content EITHER, but they have ALSO taken it upon themselves apparently to do so, which is the reasoning GODADDY gives to cause trouble in that area.
As for the net neutrality deal? WATCH OUT!!!!! I have, in the past, seen different interpretations, etc... As for the idea of throughput being tied to price, that has ALWAYS been the case! ALWAYS! When I started with similar things, in the 70s, I did work at a company that paid many THOUSANDS for a leased line. WHY? They needed faster service than the normal lines could provide. LATER, in the 80s, I researched some faster ways to communicate. ALL were too expensive. GRANTED, they were different hardware, etc.... But you know, they DID all terminate to a network connection. GRANTED, they kept getting cheaper, but there came a point where that obviously had to stop. TODAY, they have FRACTIONAL lines, and THROTTLING WHY? Do they get more money? MAYBE! But one thing is for sure. If EVERYONE had a TB/s throughput, the US would have spotty service and few would have access. It seems kind of petty to INSIST that a company give you MUCH faster service for a lower cost. BTW a TB/s is enough to power the connections to 100 100Mb/s servers.
And what of those servers? If ONE person connects, the maximum speed is 100Mb/s! If TEN connect and try to download as fast as possible, he maximum speed is 10Mb/s. Sorry, simple law of physics! So you don't even know if throttling is intentional or incidental.
Steve